*****************************************************************Hackers have targeted the US government and copyright organisations following the shutdown of the Megaupload file-sharing website.

The Department of Justice (DoJ), FBI and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) among others have been bombarded with internet traffic.

Web links have been been distributed which, when clicked, make the user's computer part of the attack.

A statement attributed to Anonymous claimed responsibility.

Megaupload displayed a video with celebrity endorsements before it was shut down

Blackout protest

The DoJ announced on Thursday that it had taken action to force Megaupload and related domain names offline, and had charged the firm's co-founders and others with violating piracy laws.

Four of the employees have been arrested in Auckland, New Zealand, at the request of the US authorities.

Police also seized cash, valuable cars and a short-barrelled shotgun from the residence of the website's German founder, Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz.

They appeared in court on Friday. One of their lawyers initially objected to media requests for photographs, but the accused said that they did not mind "because we have nothing to hide".

Their Hong Kong-based site had around 150 million users and 50 million daily hits. It had received celebrity endorsements from the model Kim Kardashian and singers Alicia Keys and Kanye West among others, making it one of the net's most high-profile file sharing sites.

The business had said it had been diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material.

News of the arrests came the day after thousands of websites had taken part in a "blackout" to protest against proposed anti-piracy laws; however, the DoJ suggested the two matters were not related.

A statement from the department noted that a grand jury indictment against the Megaupload employees was issued on 5 January.'Unwanted traffic'

Hours later a statement linked to the @AnonymousWiki twitter account announced: "We Anonymous are launching our largest attack ever on government and music industry sites. Lulz. The FBI didn't think they would get away with this did they? They should have expected us."

It said that 10 sites had been taken offline in response to the Megaupload shutdown including the FBI, Universal Music, RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and Hadopi - the French government agency responsible for "protecting creative works on the internet".

On Friday, Universal's webpage said: "This site is under maintenance. Please expect it to be back shortly."

Hadopi was also offline, reporting "technical problems". However, the other sites on the Anonymous list all loaded.

Security firm Sophos's blog said that the attacks were carried out by spreading links via Twitter and other parts of the internet which carried out distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.

"If you visit the webpage, and do not have Javascript disabled, you will instantly, without user interaction, begin to flood a website of Anonymous's choice with unwanted traffic, helping to perpetuate a DDoS attack," it said.

It noted that such attacks were illegal, meaning that users taking part in the action were breaking the law.

A tweet from one of the accounts associated with Anonymous suggested that efforts were also being made to resurrect Megaupload.

The attached link intermittently directed users to a site that resembled the shut down service. The address used a .bz domain name signalling it was registered in Belize.

However, one blogger warned that the site might be a scam designed to steal information from visitors to the page.

"Whenever file-sharing services go down, scammers and opportunists work quickly to ride on the wave of publicity generated by the targeted site's demise," said Andy Maxwell, co-editor of Torrentfreak.com.

"Megaupload is not yet 'back' and any site claiming to be them or says they're acting on their behalf should not be trusted."Confusion

Analysts say that there is a risk that the Anonymous campaign could become confused with the broader campaign against the House of Representatives' Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and the Senate's Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa).

"The action against the US bills was based on websites voluntarily censoring themselves in order to protest the restriction and damage to the internet that these laws would cause," Dr Joss Wright, a fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, told the BBC.

The authorities don;t stand a chance against this kind of attack, they're just not savvy enough. We all deplore piracy but freedom of speech is a far bigger issue and most folk won't tolerate being silenced by anyone. I'm on the side of the cyber terrorists on this issue. I'd advise any government to back down on this issue before it really gets out of hand............

But it's not really about piracy the real agenda is Internet censorship. What they are really scared of is the power of ordinary people to mass communicate with each other and bypass the previous monopoly the Elite had on information distribution. Because of the Internet we can now see with ease what liars and hypocrites the MSM and the politicians are. We can see they are controlled by the Elite while pretending to work for us.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

I'll say this for Anonymous - they stand up for their beliefs and try to back it up with some sort of action.But of course the agenda is censorship - but I don't think it's got anything to do with state sponsorted censorship but American Media Corporations being greedy. After all, why buy a music CD when you can pop a website like this, pop in the Youtube URL.

The corporations are protecting their interests so over-zealously, they stifle everyone else's right to create their own art using other people's art as a basis to form theirs from. But the sad thing is, that the bill (SOPA and PIPA) doesn't just affect American citizens - but everyone across the globe as they too, will have their websites shut down for using something as innocuous as using a copywrited image or music. Fortunately, the two bills are so unpopular with everyone across the globe - they won't be seeing the light of day. (At least in this current and all too vaugue form.)

So I part with you with these copywrited words "Keep calm and carry on."

If you aren't willing to stand behind your troops, feel free to stand in front of them.

It's not state sponsored censorship, it's elite sponsored censorship. the Elite, including those who own these greedy corporations where capitalism ensures profit first people last.

Piracy will never be stopped ( people used to make cassette copies of Albums in the 1970s and share them amongst friends ), they know this. Indeed there's theories that much piracy is generated by the Elite in order to find excuses to censor the Net.

One thing is for sure, the Elite do NOT like Ordinary People having so much Information power. They will be trying to curb this.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

That's pretty much what I said, Smeggy.I did say that it wasn't state censorship, but corporate censorship. Only I'm not going to scream "conspiracy" when it is simply just a matter of corporate greed and ham-fisted stupidity. Though I doubt very much that the likes of Rupert Murdoch are sitting at home with Limewire on their PCs downloading pirate DVDs while cackling "Ha ha , they'll blame the pirates and not me!"

If you aren't willing to stand behind your troops, feel free to stand in front of them.

Gunner 51 wrote:That's pretty much what I said, Smeggy.I did say that it wasn't state censorship, but corporate censorship.

I know and I agree on that, but the state are sponsored by the Elite. The Elite gives millions if not billions to all their favoured pre-selected candidates and the people only get to vote between 2 or 3 candidates for president or PM that have been preselected. Ron Paul incidentally is a slight deviation from that rule and the proof is that MSM which are owned a controlled by the Elite are doing their level best to marginalise him. He won't become President of the USA

Only I'm not going to scream "conspiracy" when it is simply just a matter of corporate greed and ham-fisted stupidity. Though I doubt very much that the likes of Rupert Murdoch are sitting at home with Limewire on their PCs downloading pirate DVDs while cackling "Ha ha , they'll blame the pirates and not me!"

But this "corporate greed" as you describe it IS the conspiracy. It's a conspiracy because the Governments are pretending to work for the ordinary people and broadcasting a moral high ground of freedom and democracy, yet in reality they are working for those who are paying them.... the Elite. That's where the big lie is and government have been lying to the people for hundreds of years.

I do disagree with you on the claim of "ham fisted stupidity" though. the decisions some of the politicians make may seem stupid in terms do doing what's best for the people. But they aren't doing what's best for the people, they are doing what's best for their paymasters. the people with the real power, the Elite, maybe cold blooded, but they certainly aren't stupid. No body stupid could hang on to power for centuries.

Talking of Murdoch, he's not even a British citizen but he has an access to power in this country which is thousands, if not millions, time's higher than any ordinary British citizen. The whole ethos of Democracy is equal access to power. i.e one person one vote. We do not ahve democracy in this country we have an Oligarachy

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

I still don't believe in this Elitism and realpolitik - something that inbred and insular who constantly looks out purely for itself is doomed to failure. It may take a century or two, but it fails - it always does. Every empire, monanchy and union in the world's history has it's golden years and soon ends up in decline. A corporate nation will be no different to this - if anything it will doom itself to failure even quicker as people would not accept it's validity.

A political party supports those who invest in it, that's the way the biscuit crumbles. It's been like this for millenia and it sure ain't going to change just a few people say it should. Monarchs did this centuries ago and I imagine even ancient Roman senators did this back in their day.

It's not a secret conspiracy if everyone knows that corporations put money before people. Everyone has bigger fish to fry and is not interesting in joining the Conspiracy Cult - paranoia and conspiracy as far as they are concerned doesn't play a big role in their lives. As such, they ignore it - to do otherwise is political / corporate hypocondria.

I don't see why you put Ron Paul on such a pedestal, he doesn't live here. He has no influence here. He doesn't care about Britain and there isn't even a Ron Paul party here in Britain. As far as Britain is concerned Ron Paul is largely an irrelevance. He'd have more takers if his followers set up their own political party, but they aren't going to get ANY votes until they get off their arses and TRY.

As trite as it is, every journey begins with a first step and these so called Libertarians are chicken shit to take step number one in case of failure. If they can't be arsed or are too scared to try running a county or even a town - they are in NO shape to run a whole country with strong international ties and they probably don't deserve to do so either.

If you want this American fad of Libertarianism that badly, great - run for office, set up your own party. But for the love of cake, TRY. And even if you get mullered in the election, at least you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Hey, at least I didn't sit on my arse and do nothing, I tried." I say it's about time Conspiracy Theorists began to put their money where their mouth is.

As for Rupert Murdoch, money talks. But he's not the first or last wanker with too much money and political influence. People like him have always existed and will always exist. Like I said earlier, he is part of a system that's doomed to failure. I'm content to let it fall apart under it's own weight like Communism, I'm sure the majority of people in this country are of roughly the same mindset, too.

If you aren't willing to stand behind your troops, feel free to stand in front of them.

Gunner 51 wrote:I still don't believe in this Elitism and realpolitik - something that inbred and insular who constantly looks out purely for itself is doomed to failure. It may take a century or two, but it fails - it always does. Every empire, monanchy and union in the world's history has it's golden years and soon ends up in decline. A corporate nation will be no different to this - if anything it will doom itself to failure even quicker as people would not accept it's validity.

A political party supports those who invest in it, that's the way the biscuit crumbles. It's been like this for millenia and it sure ain't going to change just a few people say it should. Monarchs did this centuries ago and I imagine even ancient Roman senators did this back in their day.

It's not a secret conspiracy if everyone knows that corporations put money before people. Everyone has bigger fish to fry and is not interesting in joining the Conspiracy Cult - paranoia and conspiracy as far as they are concerned doesn't play a big role in their lives. As such, they ignore it - to do otherwise is political / corporate hypocondria.

I don't see why you put Ron Paul on such a pedestal, he doesn't live here. He has no influence here. He doesn't care about Britain and there isn't even a Ron Paul party here in Britain. As far as Britain is concerned Ron Paul is largely an irrelevance. He'd have more takers if his followers set up their own political party, but they aren't going to get ANY votes until they get off their arses and TRY.

As trite as it is, every journey begins with a first step and these so called Libertarians are chicken shit to take step number one in case of failure. If they can't be arsed or are too scared to try running a county or even a town - they are in NO shape to run a whole country with strong international ties and they probably don't deserve to do so either.

If you want this American fad of Libertarianism that badly, great - run for office, set up your own party. But for the love of cake, TRY. And even if you get mullered in the election, at least you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Hey, at least I didn't sit on my arse and do nothing, I tried." I say it's about time Conspiracy Theorists began to put their money where their mouth is.

As for Rupert Murdoch, money talks. But he's not the first or last wanker with too much money and political influence. People like him have always existed and will always exist. Like I said earlier, he is part of a system that's doomed to failure. I'm content to let it fall apart under it's own weight like Communism, I'm sure the majority of people in this country are of roughly the same mindset, too.

You started off by saying you don't believe in Elitism and then go on to talk about the Elit4e like you recognise it exists.

To address a few points individually ....

Gunner 51 wrote:It's not a secret conspiracy if everyone knows that corporations put money before people. Everyone has bigger fish to fry and is not interesting in joining the Conspiracy Cult - paranoia and conspiracy as far as they are concerned doesn't play a big role in their lives. As such, they ignore it - to do otherwise is political / corporate hypocondria.

Of course it's not secret. I don't know anyone, myself included who claims it is secret that the Elite have the political power because they have the money. You even recognise that yourself. Also I don't know why you keep going on about conspiracy cults, paranoia and such like. I've never heard of the Conspiracy Cult btw

Gunner 51 wrote:I don't see why you put Ron Paul on such a pedestal, he doesn't live here. He has no influence here. He doesn't care about Britain and there isn't even a Ron Paul party here in Britain. As far as Britain is concerned Ron Paul is largely an irrelevance

I don't put Paul on pedestal, and I disagree on the rest of that paragraph. Like it or not the USA is a huge influence on the UK. The two countries are hugely linked in terms of the Elite that dominate the politics of both the USA and UK. The BBC can't get enough of the USA, I've never seen such blind sycophancy. the UK has always joined the USA in using it's military as mercenaries to plunder wealth of teh Elite, and it's going to do it again when they attack Iran.

Ron Paul, with all his faults, is the only Candidate I've seen that hasn't suckered up to the Pro-Israel Elite in America and he wants to sort out the federal reserve, which is a huge scam on the American people. So what happens in America is relevent to what happens here.

If you want this American fad of Libertarianism that badly, great - run for office, set up your own party. But for the love of cake, TRY. And even if you get mullered in the election, at least you can look yourself in the mirror and say "Hey, at least I didn't sit on my arse and do nothing, I tried." I say it's about time Conspiracy Theorists began to put their money where their mouth is.

If that was aimed at me then I'm not sure what to make of it. I've repeatedly stated I see the 'Political Party' a significant reason why we don't have a democracy. Political parties by their very nature make it damn easy for the few to control the many. Even without the Elite control of the top people ion the party, there's even an official mechanism for it called "The Party Whip"

I'm not sure what an "American fad of Libertarianism" actually is so I can't say I want it or not. I just want a political system that gives equal access to power, ie a democracy, and which severely limits the ability for an oligarchy to form.

Personally I'm not healthy enough to stand for political office, and if I did certainly wouldn't form something I see as a handicap to democracy like a Political party,. that would make no sense at all.

however I'm not just apathetic, I do what I can. I vote against what I see as the problem and I use what energy I can find to speak out and encourage others to do the same. crumbs said in another thread

"elect a government that is bad for them? That only happens in the the West. LOL."

... and he has a point. every 5 years the British People elect a government that is bad for them. The reason they do it is because after 2 or 3 terms they finally realise the government was bad for them so they elect back in the 'Opposition', the government that was bad them the time before that in the irrational hope that this time it won't be bad for them. It's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over but each time expecting a different result.

Surely it's a positive move to encourage people to stop voting for something they don't like?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

Mere days after the FBI shut down Megaupload.com and arrested its staff, competitors Filesonic.com and Fileserve.com have made the decision to wipe all file-sharing functionality from their own services.

Until now, both sites operated in much the same way as Megaupload did: users could upload any kind of file to the websites for their own personal storage, but also share a public link to allow others to download the file for free.

As of 23 January, however, that latter functionality is no longer available on either site. Trying to download any previously shared file from Filesonic results in the error message: "All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally." On Fileserve a similar message reads: "FileServe can only be used to download and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally."

Resonance wrote:If these movie companies had any brains they'd have cottoned on to the idea that people want to stream movies as soon as they come out for a reasonable fee......

....but no, they still want to sell DVD's/Blu-Rays for rip off prices. Then they wonder why people look elsewhere

most peopel who download pirate stuff would never have bought the real deal anyway.

This isn't really about piracy in the grand scheme of things it's about an agenda to censor the Net. Look at the video by dr Bob above who claims that the same people complaining about Piracy are the encouragers of it. its' a kind of false flag. Create lots of piracy, and then campaign for laws to stop it, which also allow them to censor websites.

ProblemReactionSolution

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

Resonance wrote:If these movie companies had any brains they'd have cottoned on to the idea that people want to stream movies as soon as they come out for a reasonable fee......

....but no, they still want to sell DVD's/Blu-Rays for rip off prices. Then they wonder why people look elsewhere

most peopel who download pirate stuff would never have bought the real deal anyway.

This isn't really about piracy in the grand scheme of things it's about an agenda to censor the Net. Look at the video by dr Bob above who claims that the same people complaining about Piracy are the encouragers of it. its' a kind of false flag. Create lots of piracy, and then campaign for laws to stop it, which also allow them to censor websites.

There may be an Elite, but your version of it seems to differ from mine. Your Elite is a single mass that seeks to view everyone else who as it's enemy. Mine is just a collection of arseholes with mucho money and no brains who would sell their own mothers for a quid. But I guess that comes back to the "Stupid politicians / Smart Elite" arguement. It's no big conspiracy if everyone knows about it, but the question is why aren't people as bothered about it as you - I have a few theories of my own about this, but that can wait for later.

But like I've said before and even Oddquine said in another thread, it's pretty much all down to our individual perceptions. But I think I prefer my version "We believe in what we want to beleive in."

Sure you put Ron Paul on a pedestal, you do have a habit of singing his praises a lot. When Britain does as the US does, it usually does it because so because Britain profits from it in some fashion. Britain isn't the powerhouse it used to be and cannot really take unilateral action as it once did - and it needs a backer.

Smeggy, you may not be fit enough to fun for office. But you do have the leadership skills, empathy, charisma and know-how for it. Crumbs thinks he's leadership material - but he's not fit to be a leader. Mostly on the grounds that he lacks all of the above and comes across as a raving and avaricial fool who only alienates the people he's trying to convert. The best thing he can do to aid his cause is be quiet. He may indeed have a right to speak doesn't mean to say that he should, he only hurts his cause by doing so - unless that is his intention.

Even now, the people are getting annoyed with successive and ineffective government. Which is why voter apathy is creeping in - even the Conservatives were a shoe-in for victory given the many failings of the Labour party that preceeded them and if the polls at the time are to be believed. However David Cameron opened his mouth and people realised he was Thatcher-Lite and stopped voting for him. The result was not quite the victory he'd hoped for - but the whole thing ended in a hung parliament. If he'd carried on talking, the Lib Dems might have squeaked their way into Number 10.

Given a few more years of this, I predict there will be revolts. This should at least give the government a big enough kick in the arse to get it's shit together. (Hopefully)

Why elect a government that's bad for you? Because the other party is even worse. I don't see any competant or even well-meaning parties throwing their hat into the ring as it were. Which is why I suggested that people of a similar mindset to you should at least try to organise a party of your own. But this pessimistic talk of the party whip makes you sound like you are admitting defeat before anyone has begun.

It's more honourable to fight and lose than to admit defeat and moan about things.

If you aren't willing to stand behind your troops, feel free to stand in front of them.

Trying is the first step towards failure...Homer Simpson"Ahhhhhh bollox.... whats the point "... Me I would like to thank the MOD for all of their support over the years ...thanks for fuck all do whaaaaaa ?

Gunner 51 wrote:There may be an Elite, but your version of it seems to differ from mine. Your Elite is a single mass that seeks to view everyone else who as it's enemy.

No my elite isn't a single mass. Check back my posts if you can't remember, but I've always said the direction the world travels in is the sum of a number of vector forces. The elite have the most powerful forces ( to an exponential degree ) andso things tarvel in the direction they desire. They certainly aren't a single mass

Mine is just a collection of arseholes with mucho money and no brains who would sell their own mothers for a quid. But I guess that comes back to the "Stupid politicians / Smart Elite" arguement.

Yes they haev mucho money and yes they would sell their own mothers for a quid. They are not stupid though. You can't be stupid to be able to hang onto power for so long., becuase it would be easy fro those with more intelligence to take it awayw from from you.

It's no big conspiracy if everyone knows about it, but the question is why aren't people as bothered about it as you - I have a few theories of my own about this, but that can wait for later.

You talk of conspiracy again. I've never said it's a conspiracy, but conspiracy's dont' have to be secret. the Elite have an agenda to perpetuate their powerbase and even increase it by enslaving the rest of us by debt and ever increaseing regulations and laws

But like I've said before and even Oddquine said in another thread, it's pretty much all down to our individual perceptions. But I think I prefer my version "We believe in what we want to beleive in."

Thing is though gunns, I don't want to 'believe' I want to find the truth. Blind belief is for religions, I'm not into that.

[quoe]Sure you put Ron Paul on a pedestal, you do have a habit of singing his praises a lot. When Britain does as the US does, it usually does it because so because Britain profits from it in some fashion. Britain isn't the powerhouse it used to be and cannot really take unilateral action as it once did - and it needs a backer. [/quote]

Agreeing with someone's views is not necessarily putting them on a pedestal

Smeggy, you may not be fit enough to fun for office. But you do have the leadership skills, empathy, charisma and know-how for it. Crumbs thinks he's leadership material - but he's not fit to be a leader. Mostly on the grounds that he lacks all of the above and comes across as a raving and avaricial fool who only alienates the people he's trying to convert. The best thing he can do to aid his cause is be quiet. He may indeed have a right to speak doesn't mean to say that he should, he only hurts his cause by doing so - unless that is his intention.

I'm flattered you feel that way gunns But being a leader is not something I aspire to All I want to in regard to geo-politics is search for the truth. Along that journey if I discover some thing worth telling others I will do so and hopefully encourage them to do their own research. the reason I'm looking for the truth is that the mainstream zeitgeist is largely full of lies an so be default is much of history. History is always written by the most powerful, the winners.

But I don't want ot be some leader, some messiah of truth and expect peopel to believe waht I say blindly. I would encourage peopel to do their own research. I respect that not everybody is interested though and that's fien too

Even now, the people are getting annoyed with successive and ineffective government. Which is why voter apathy is creeping in - even the Conservatives were a shoe-in for victory given the many failings of the Labour party that preceeded them and if the polls at the time are to be believed. However David Cameron opened his mouth and people realised he was Thatcher-Lite and stopped voting for him. The result was not quite the victory he'd hoped for - but the whole thing ended in a hung parliament. If he'd carried on talking, the Lib Dems might have squeaked their way into Number 10.

Given a few more years of this, I predict there will be revolts. This should at least give the government a big enough kick in the arse to get it's shit together. (Hopefully)

Why elect a government that's bad for you? Because the other party is even worse. I don't see any competant or even well-meaning parties throwing their hat into the ring as it were. Which is why I suggested that people of a similar mindset to you should at least try to organise a party of your own. But this pessimistic talk of the party whip makes you sound like you are admitting defeat before anyone has begun.

It's more honourable to fight and lose than to admit defeat and moan about things.

I'll try and explain yet again .... the concept of the party is one of the things I am against. So why would I start a party if I don't agree with parties. You need to expand your boundaries about political systems further than just parties.

Why elect a government that's bad for you? Because the other party is even worse.

And this is by people whose mindset can't extend beyond voting even though anything they choose is bad for them. The usual excuse is "people died for our right to vote so we should sue it. They should realise that not voting is also a 'vote'.

People actually died for our right to free expression. restriction your expression becuase of some misguided ethos about 'one must vote' os actually denying yourself free expression and that's no what people died for.

I've said this several times before, but IMO the reason we have a 2.5 party system which is all controlled by the elite and candidates for PM are preselected by the Elite is becuase the system is geared up to to make that easy for them to monopolise politics. especially as they also own the mainstream media, which Politics relies upon to gets its propaganda out. No surprise the Mainstream media is restricted to the 2.5 party model as well.

The Citizens of a country aren't divided into 2.5 camps, they are much more diverse than that and if we had a political system for the people and evolved by the people it damn well wouldn't be restricted ( In practise ) to 2.5 parties.

the system needs reforming. Just starting another party and being at the mercy of the Elite controlled MSM is not the way to go about changing things. People have tried that route for hundreds of years and have got nowhere, so can't you see it's not learning by mistakes to suggest starting up yet another party?

The only way things will change is of enough people educate themselves to the truth and start voting accordingly. the first thing to vote against, as it's the root of the problem is the system.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----